<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">I think the executive summary needs to mention that plurality = First Past the Post. The term plurality is basically never used in the UK and most people wouldn't know what it means, so to cover as many countries as we can, we need to use the terms that each country uses.<VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR><BR style="RIGHT: auto" class=yui-cursor></SPAN></div>
<div><BR></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr readonly="true" contenteditable="false"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Andy Jennings <elections@jenningsstory.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> ElectionMethods@votefair.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> election-methods@electorama.com<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, 8 September 2011, 6:49<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [EM] Executive Summary for Declaration<BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1681324491>
<DIV>I do like the executive summary. Maybe it's a little too long?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think we could do without the sentence "Some good Condorcet methods are:..."</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I do think the PR section could be significantly shortened.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I made a few changes. Feel free to review, roll back, and discuss if you think I have erred.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>~ Andy Jennings</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=yiv1681324491gmail_quote>On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Richard Fobes <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:ElectionMethods@votefair.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:ElectionMethods@votefair.org">ElectionMethods@votefair.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=yiv1681324491gmail_quote>On 9/7/2011 2:09 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:<BR>> I still think the 12 page declaration (incl table of contents) needs an<BR>> executive summary. The table of contents does not in my honest opinion<BR>> give good enough information.<BR><BR><BR>I agree that the declaration needs an executive summary. Here is what I've come up with as a first draft:<BR><BR>----- Executive Summary -----<BR><BR>This declaration, which has been signed by election-method experts from around the world, publicly denounces the use of plurality voting in governmental elections. Plurality voting mistakenly assumes that the candidate who receives the most ballot marks – on single-mark ballots – is the most popular. Plurality voting also suffers from vote splitting, which is what forces political parties to offer only a single choice
in each election.<BR><BR>As replacements for plurality voting, this declaration recommends four significantly fairer election methods, namely, in alphabetical order: Approval voting, any Condorcet method, Majority Judgment voting, and Range voting. These methods use better ballots – namely the Approval ballot, Ranked ballot, and Score ballot – to collect much more preference information compared to plurality's primitive single-mark ballot.<BR><BR>The lack of awareness about plurality voting's unfairness arises from its use of single-mark ballots, which not only fail to collect enough information to correctly identify the most popular candidate, but also fail to collect enough information to produce proof or evidence of the unfair results.<BR><BR>Computer technology now makes it easy to count better ballots and correctly identify who deserves to win. All the supported methods are based on the fact that a majority of voters, not just a
plurality of voters, must approve or prefer the winning candidate in order to produce fairer results.<BR><BR>In spite of the academically recognized, well-known unfairness of plurality voting, it is used throughout Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and to some extent nearly every democracy around the world. As a consequence of adopting fairer election methods, this declaration's signers expect the benefits to include a dramatically reduced gap between voters and government, more easily -- and fairly -- resolved political conflicts, and significantly increased economic prosperity for any region that adopts fairer election methods.<BR><BR>Significantly the election-method experts do not support the use of instant-runoff voting, which is also known as the alternative vote. This method is based on the mistaken belief that the candidate with the fewest plurality votes is the least popular candidate.<BR><BR>The four supported methods also
can be adopted for use in non-governmental situations, such as electing an organization's officers, making democratic decisions, and electing corporate board members.<BR><BR>The signers of this declaration do not share any common political beliefs, and are confident that the recommended election reforms will not favor any particular political parties or political orientations. Their clearly stated goal is to improve election fairness by replacing primitive plurality voting with any of the fairer supported methods. Their expectation is that a higher level of democracy will lead to higher standards of living, reduced conflicts, and widespread greater economic prosperity, just as replacing monarchies and dictatorships with plurality voting has produced dramatic and widespread benefits.<BR><BR>The signers urge everyone to learn more about how voting should be done – using Approval voting, Condorcet methods, Majority Judgment voting, or Range voting –
and begin adopting the supported voting methods in whatever situations currently, yet inappropriately, use plurality voting.<BR><BR>----- end -----<BR><BR>It mentions some concepts that currently aren't in the declaration itself, so if this executive summary is liked, adjustments will need to be made in either this summary or in the declaration.<BR><BR>Also note that this summary does not mention PR. We still need to decide what to do about that section. It is long yet just says we like PR but oppose closed-list PR.<BR><BR>Richard Fobes<BR><BR><BR>On 9/7/2011 2:09 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=yiv1681324491gmail_quote>Dear Jameson,<BR><BR>I still think the 12 page declaration (incl table of contents) needs an<BR>executive summary. The table of contents does not in my honest oppinion<BR>give good enough information.<BR><BR>An executive summary is standard when writing policy recommendations<BR>like this, and you cannot write a scientific paper without an abstract.<BR><BR>On the other hand I understand, that writing summaries and abstracts is<BR>sometimes a pain (it is at least to me), and that it is easier to point<BR>out things that could be improved and more difficult to do something<BR>about it, like writing the summary myself.<BR><BR>I dont write this just to nag. If you want your recommendations to be<BR>read by decision makers, you had better catch the interest within the<BR>one or two minutes this person will maximally spend do decide if
the<BR>declaration is worth reading.<BR><BR>It would be a petty, if this iniciative faild to get impact because the<BR>lack of a summary.<BR><BR>Basically, a summary would give the declaration a wider audience and<BR>increase the potential political impact of the declaration.<BR><BR>Best regards<BR>Peter Zborník<BR><BR>On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Jameson Quinn <<A href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</A><BR><mailto:<A href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.<U></U>com</A>>> wrote:<BR>...<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>----<BR>Election-Methods mailing list - see <A href="http://electorama.com/em" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://electorama.com/em</A> for list info<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>----<BR>Election-Methods mailing list - see <A
href="http://electorama.com/em" target=_blank>http://electorama.com/em</A> for list info<BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>